Part Three 1006 words
The Logic of Cruelty
The Case that Keeps "Illegal" Drivers Uninsured
Analysis of Sanchez & Doe vs. State of Iowa, Iowa Department of Public Safety, and Iowa Department of Transportation, Iowa Supreme Court, No. 14 / 04-0176 Filed February 18, 2005
By Dave Leach(Dave Leach is listed in Marquis' "Who's Who in Communications". Write to him at Leach@Saltshaker.US)
Translation into Spanish by Gabriela G. Buenrostro,former newspaper and magazine journalist and writer, and former host Zero Radio Show in Mexico City. (Write to her at Gabriela@Saltshaker.US)

Part Three 
Why the Court Doesn't Worry About the U.S. Constitution
The Iowa Supreme Court opinion acknowledged Daniels' argument that "The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits states from 'deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' U.S. Const. amend XIV, §1."
The part before that is good too: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Undocumented immigrants are "persons", aren't they? 
Undocumented immigrants live "within" the "jurisdiction" of "states", don't they? (If they aren't subject to U.S. jurisdiction, then where does the USCIS get the right to arrest them?) 
Well then, if the Constitution says laws shall protect all "persons" equally, how can a law preventing 24,000 Iowa "persons" from getting to work safely be constitutional?
Easy. Because...well, wait a minute. I mean, easy for a judge. For the rest of us, we are going to need to pay attention. 
You see, there are different kinds of rights. There are "fundamental liberty interests", the really important stuff; and then there is just the little piddly stuff that legislatures can trample if they have a logical-sounding reason. That's right, it doesn't have to be a good reason, so long as it sounds logical. What? You don't believe they would really say that? Well hold your nose. We are about to jump in.
"The [concerned Iowans] argued in their brief that we should apply strict scrutiny in this case. However, at oral arguments, counsel correctly conceded that no suspect class or fundamental right was at issue in this case and that rational basis was the appropriate level of scrutiny....Under rational-basis review, the statute need only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. 'Such a classification cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment [a respectable way of saying "discrimination"] and some legitimate governmental purpose.'"
So, you ask, if the right to travel isn't a fundamental right, what is? It turns out that, in the opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court, the list of "fundamental rights" is rather short. Here it is:
"Fundamental liberty interests ... 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' ... include "the rights to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to bodily integrity, and to abortion...[The Supreme Court has] also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment."
I can see that Curt Daniels presented the wrong arguments to the Iowa Supreme Court. He should have found undocumented immigrants who were forced to drive to an abortion clinic without auto insurance.
So now that we understand the right to travel is just a "little right", alongside the much more fundamental rights to die, kill your baby, and get a Sexually Transmitted Disease, exactly how much more careless of our "little rights" may the state legislature be, in pursuit of a "legitimate state interest"? And who decides what "state interests" are "legitimate"?
We may not learn the answer until we get to Heaven, and the answer may not even be known there. But "not allowing its governmental machinery to be a facilitator for the concealment of illegal aliens" is a legitimate enough state interest for the Iowa Supreme Court. Even if that "governmental machinery" is permission to exercise a Constitutional right. 
(This statement invites the argument that "Driving is a right, not a privilege", which will be addressed shortly, after finishing with this subject.)
It doesn't matter if the legislature could have served the same state purpose without reducing anyone's rights, as long as we are just talking about a "little right". Legislatures have no responsibility to achieve their "legitimate state purposes" with the minimum disruption of citizen's rights, so long as they are "little rights". Here's how the Court explains it:
"With respect to the first state interest, the [concerned Iowans] respond that giving illegal aliens driver's licenses [is not necessary to] facilitate their concealment because the DOT could make the licenses identify the holder's status as an illegal alien. This is not an argument that the proffered state interest is not legitimate. Rather, it is an argument that the statute is not narrowly tailored. Nevertheless, the legislature is not required to employ the 'best' means of achieving a legitimate state interest. [That is, the means that will trample the fewest human rights.] Equal protection only requires the legislature to have reasonably believed that the means chosen would promote the purpose."
There you have it. Were a "fundamental right" involved, then there would be "strict scrutiny", meaning a law must strictly serve only a legitimate state interest and not be so broad as to unnecessarily trample human rights. But being able to get to work is not a "fundamental right" so the legislature's connection between a law and a legitimate state purpose need only be a "rational" enough connection that it does not appear irrational. 
It is interesting that the Iowa Supreme Court's short list of "fundamental rights" does not even include the right to vote. Could that be because they see no need to remind voters that they, too, face a retention vote every 4 years? 
Next week: Part Four, "Driving is not a right, but a privilege."